Summer Transfer Window

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Darren Peacock's Ponytail said:
The problem people have is they can only see the **** football.

They completely forgot or don’t know how bad the finances were under Freddy Shepherd.
Yes the debt remained the same. Difference being we weren’t being crippled by interest.
Forecasts showed at the time we’d probably have ended up with a point deduction and relegation. Obviously at this point who knows what would have happened however based on all other teams that have been in a similar position 95% of them are now mainstays in the lower leagues.

Yes he ducked up on almost everything else but debt wasn’t one of them hence our position now. Yes he could have done better. Much better. Much much better but that’s life
Click to expand...

The thing is nobody can claim it's been a financial "success", which is why the comments are so irksome. Shepherd initially, early to mid 90's, did a decent initial job, mainly thanks to Hall, but as time wore on it became clear Shepherd was utterly clueless and driving the club towards disaster. Ashley acting responsibly with a balance sheet for a business HE owns is a bare minimum, it's like saying a player's done a great job because he put his boots on and remembered which team he was on. That Shepherd wasn't even capable of the bare minimum in the end is an indictment of him, not a means by which to praise Ashley.

The mis-management of the club may have helped us in the end. Not the finances. The fact we probably should have been worth double or more what he sold it for may be the thing that got us sold. I mean, he paid £134m and in 14 years, when Spurs value went up about 10x, when Man City went from £80m to a £4bn global brand, he managed to sell the club for about £180m. He increased the value barely in line with inflation.

He was ****ing dreadful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Consett Mag, magpie290761 and Geordie Ginola
Roland Deschain said:
The thing is nobody can claim it's been a financial "success", which is why the comments are so irksome. Shepherd initially, early to mid 90's, did a decent initial job, mainly thanks to Hall, but as time wore on it became clear Shepherd was utterly clueless and driving the club towards disaster. Ashley acting responsibly with a balance sheet for a business HE owns is a bare minimum, it's like saying a player's done a great job because he put his boots on and remembered which team he was on. That Shepherd wasn't even capable of the bare minimum in the end is an indictment of him, not a means by which to praise Ashley.

The mis-management of the club may have helped us in the end. Not the finances. The fact we probably should have been worth double or more what he sold it for may be the thing that got us sold. I mean, he paid £134m and in 14 years, when Spurs value went up about 10x, he managed to sell the club for about £180m. So that's the only argument for me.
Click to expand...
You still not getting that if we had continued under FFS we would be a league 1 team. End of discussion
 
  • Like
Reactions: Munson.
Rumsfield said:
No that wasn't the point <laugh>
Click to expand...

Here's one of many quotes claiming he did a good job (financially):

"he ran the club well financially and that's helped sell the club or at least helped

It's also why they can spend a bit more right off the bat."

It's madness. If it had been run well financially we'd have been a) worth a lot more, b) already have a lot more to spend off the bat, c) have a higher/healthier turnover and a more valuable squad, d) a competent set-up, e) facilities that are better than League One standard, and so on and so forth.

You can't just say Ashley did well, financially, then ignore all of the disastrous financial mistakes he made, just because he's richer than Shepherd and better at EBITDA!!! We still borrowed (from him), but we cut every cost rather than improve revenues elsewhere. We wouldn't even spend money that was guaranteed - Shepherd was doing the age-old mistake of borrowing against potential earnings (requiring CL football, etc.). Ashley was infinitely more sensible, but to the clubs detriment because we were waiting on Sky TV payments and wouldn't spend til it was actually in the bank. It hurt our advancement for years.

He was a disaster, financially, but was better than Shepherd purely because he could lend from MASH Holding/Sports Direct, wouldn't use banks and knew what a balance sheet was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximin Effort and magpie290761
Roland Deschain said:
Here's one of many quotes claiming he did a good job (financially):

"he ran the club well financially and that's helped sell the club or at least helped

It's also why they can spend a bit more right off the bat."

It's madness. If it had been run well financially we'd have been a) worth a lot more, b) already have a lot more to spend off the bat, c) have a higher/healthier turnover and a more valuable squad, d) a competent set-up, e) facilities that are better than League One standard, and so on and so forth.

You can't just say Ashley did well, financially, then ignore all of the disastrous financial mistakes he made, just because he's richer than Shepherd and better at EBITDA!!! We still borrowed (from him), but we cut every cost rather than improve revenues elsewhere. We wouldn't even spend money that was guaranteed - Shepherd was doing the age-old mistake of borrowing against potential earnings (requiring CL football, etc.). Ashley was infinitely more sensible, but to the clubs detriment because we were waiting on Sky TV payments and wouldn't spend til it was actually in the bank. It hurt our advancement for years.

He was a disaster, financially, but was better than Shepherd purely because he could lend from MASH Holding/Sports Direct, wouldn't use banks and knew what a balance sheet was.
Click to expand...

You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schlem Boogerman
Roland Deschain said:
Here's one of many quotes claiming he did a good job (financially):

"he ran the club well financially and that's helped sell the club or at least helped

It's also why they can spend a bit more right off the bat."

It's madness. If it had been run well financially we'd have been a) worth a lot more, b) already have a lot more to spend off the bat, c) have a higher/healthier turnover and a more valuable squad, d) a competent set-up, e) facilities that are better than League One standard, and so on and so forth.

You can't just say Ashley did well, financially, then ignore all of the disastrous financial mistakes he made, just because he's richer than Shepherd and better at EBITDA!!! We still borrowed (from him), but we cut every cost rather than improve revenues elsewhere. We wouldn't even spend money that was guaranteed - Shepherd was doing the age-old mistake of borrowing against potential earnings (requiring CL football, etc.). Ashley was infinitely more sensible, but to the clubs detriment because we were waiting on Sky TV payments and wouldn't spend til it was actually in the bank. It hurt our advancement for years.

He was a disaster, financially, but was better than Shepherd purely because he could lend from MASH Holding/Sports Direct, wouldn't use banks and knew what a balance sheet was.
Click to expand...
Agreed although ou can definitely say he did a great job in making sure the debt was transferred to himself and the wage structure was reigned in and stuck to religiously likely saving the club but this is just one area, if you focus on how far the club fell behind in revenue to comparable clubs when he first took over he really didn't do a good job as we stagnated and even declined if I remember correctly, he also got cheap or even free advertising for sports dorevt limiting our options during his time.

In conclusion everyone is correct to an extent, case closed now transfers please!
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761 and Roland Deschain
Roland Deschain said:
Here's one of many quotes claiming he did a good job (financially):

"he ran the club well financially and that's helped sell the club or at least helped

It's also why they can spend a bit more right off the bat."

It's madness. If it had been run well financially we'd have been a) worth a lot more, b) already have a lot more to spend off the bat, c) have a higher/healthier turnover and a more valuable squad, d) a competent set-up, e) facilities that are better than League One standard, and so on and so forth.

You can't just say Ashley did well, financially, then ignore all of the disastrous financial mistakes he made, just because he's richer than Shepherd and better at EBITDA!!! We still borrowed (from him), but we cut every cost rather than improve revenues elsewhere. We wouldn't even spend money that was guaranteed - Shepherd was doing the age-old mistake of borrowing against potential earnings (requiring CL football, etc.). Ashley was infinitely more sensible, but to the clubs detriment because we were waiting on Sky TV payments and wouldn't spend til it was actually in the bank. It hurt our advancement for years.

He was a disaster, financially, but was better than Shepherd purely because he could lend from MASH Holding/Sports Direct, wouldn't use banks and knew what a balance sheet was.
Click to expand...


The question was whether he left the club in a better financial position and he did... It was a fact.

He took over a club about to go into administration and be the next Leeds and turned into a business that made profits most years.

What you've posted is whataboutery.

Again up tell you like the others still licking their wounds that I am not saying everything he did was good....far from it
 
Rumsfield said:
The question was whether he left the club in a better financial position and he did... It was a fact.

He took over a club about to go into administration and be the next Leeds and turned into a business that made profits most years.

What you've posted is whataboutery.

Again up tell you like the others still licking their wounds that I am not saying everything he did was good....far from it
Click to expand...

Better financial position than when he took over yes.
The infrastructure and stadium and bogs better - no- far worse due to neglect.
Having the club maximising all of it's revenue streams - no.

We were ahead of Spurs when Ashley came in revenue-wise... when he left they were light years ahead of us.

That's a perfect example of mismanagement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761, NUforever, Munson. and 1 other person
Rumsfield said:
The question was whether he left the club in a better financial position and he did... It was a fact.

He took over a club about to go into administration and be the next Leeds and turned into a business that made profits most years.

What you've posted is whataboutery.
Click to expand...

You lot are all on a cocktail of drugs if you believe he saved the club from administration. All smoked the remnants of the worlds biggest crack pipe.

The slug didn't do due diligence and didn't understand how football finances worked. Handcuffed the club by paying transfer fees upfront whilst receiving them on drip. Had no clue about the mortgage then paid it off himself "to look good and avoid paying interest" and then hid behind this as he raped the club.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761 and Roland Deschain
magdad said:
You lot are all on a cocktail of drugs if you believe he saved the club from administration. All smoked the remnants of the worlds biggest crack pipe.

The slug didn't do due diligence and didn't understand how football finances worked. Handcuffed the club by paying transfer fees upfront whilst receiving them on drip. Had no clue about the mortgage then paid it off himself "to look good and avoid paying interest" and then hid behind this as he raped the club.
Click to expand...


And you lot are just so sore you'll perform all kinds of mental gymnastics rather than credit a person you want to burn at the stake for the one thing he did well.

I find it easier to just say the truth because it doesn't alter the fact I don't like Mike ashley or what his product was.

It doesn't matter whether he found out about the extra debt he still resolved the financial mess.

Without Mike ashley we wouldn't have these owners.... Everything has happened that had to happen that's the irony you lot don't see.
 
Rumsfield said:
And you lot are just so sore you'll perform all kinds of mental gymnastics rather than credit a person you want to burn at the stake.

I find it easier to just say the truth because it doesn't alter the fact I don't like Mike ashley or what his product was.
Click to expand...

You're talking a load of **** to get a reaction is what you're doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Albert's Chip Shop, magpie290761 and Schlem Boogerman
Albert's Chip Shop said:
Better financial position than when he took over yes.
The infrastructure and stadium and bogs better - no- far worse due to neglect.
Having the club maximising all of it's revenue streams - no.

We were ahead of Spurs when Ashley came in revenue-wise... when he left they were light years ahead of us.

That's a perfect example of mismanagement.
Click to expand...


Then you agree

You must log in or register to see images
 
magdad said:
You're talking a load of **** to get a reaction is what you're doing.
Click to expand...

No I just know once again that what I said was specific and correct.

The fact is you're all arguing seperate points and that tells me you don't understand what I said in the 1st place.
 
Last edited:
Roland Deschain said:
Here's one of many quotes claiming he did a good job (financially):

"he ran the club well financially and that's helped sell the club or at least helped

It's also why they can spend a bit more right off the bat."

It's madness. If it had been run well financially we'd have been a) worth a lot more, b) already have a lot more to spend off the bat, c) have a higher/healthier turnover and a more valuable squad, d) a competent set-up, e) facilities that are better than League One standard, and so on and so forth.

You can't just say Ashley did well, financially, then ignore all of the disastrous financial mistakes he made, just because he's richer than Shepherd and better at EBITDA!!! We still borrowed (from him), but we cut every cost rather than improve revenues elsewhere. We wouldn't even spend money that was guaranteed - Shepherd was doing the age-old mistake of borrowing against potential earnings (requiring CL football, etc.). Ashley was infinitely more sensible, but to the clubs detriment because we were waiting on Sky TV payments and wouldn't spend til it was actually in the bank. It hurt our advancement for years.

He was a disaster, financially, but was better than Shepherd purely because he could lend from MASH Holding/Sports Direct, wouldn't use banks and knew what a balance sheet was.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. 100%!
 
Can you post on the Ashley thread if your having a discussion about him please ?
To be honest it’s pages of repetition
This is the transfer thread isn’t it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jamtoon88 and Griffy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back